log in or register to remove this ad

 

Level Up (A5E) Changes to Advantage

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Oh I just mean that by native 5e it doesn't stack and I think it should, and the 2d8 2d12 system makes stacking even more weird to figure out because I don't have d14s.
Oh, gotcha! Yeah, just stack them, it works fine like that. No need for wonky dice or anything else IMO. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
Give me more ways to do extra things that cost disadvantage. So when I can got advantage from multiple sources the duplicates aren’t wasted.
 

p_johnston

Explorer
I Would also point out that any sort of stacking disadvantage/advantage makes spells like darkness and fog cloud largely useless. The purposes of spells that end up blinding everyone is that since everyone is blinded they all have advantage and disadvantage. This means everything equals out to normal rolls no matter what. If you allow stacking advantage/disadvantage then using a spell like fog cloud is almost entirely useless.

I used to do stacking advantage/disadvantage and stopped for that very reason.
 

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I Would also point out that any sort of stacking disadvantage/advantage makes spells like darkness and fog cloud largely useless. The purposes of spells that end up blinding everyone is that since everyone is blinded they all have advantage and disadvantage. This means everything equals out to normal rolls no matter what. If you allow stacking advantage/disadvantage then using a spell like fog cloud is almost entirely useless.

I used to do stacking advantage/disadvantage and stopped for that very reason.
Welcome to the EnWorld! Congrats on the first post and have a like. :)

We've been stacking sources for advantage/disadvantage since we began. So far, nothing has seemed almost entirely useless, but obviously your experiences have differed from mine.
 

p_johnston

Explorer
Thanks!

I will admit that darkness, fog cloud, and the like still have some use through devils sight, blindsight, and truesight. It does make it much harder for characters to utilize them though because the only easily available way to get one of those three is through a warlock invocation. So in the end it ended up with me the DM having fun toys to play with and the players having a few spells they just stopped using.

I have always enjoyed the idea of having a greater options then simply granting advantage/disadvantage if multiple things are working for/against the action. I just have yet to find a method that felt right. The best solution I have come up with is having each additional advantage/disadvantage grant an additional +1/-1 with it still evening out to a normal roll if you have both.
 

rules.mechanic

Craft homebrewer
The biggest difference between Advantage 2/5/10 and stacked advantage is that Advantage 2/5/10 is essentially fractional (depends on target but approximates quarter, half or full advantage), while stacked advantage is a multiplier e.g. "double" advantage from 3x d20. All depends on whether you want the new system to have granularity with "lesser advantage", or with "greater advantage". I'm happy with "greater advantage" from stacked advantage, for lesser advantage I am comfortable with small modifiers instead (+/-2) but I know others are less keen.
 

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
The biggest difference between Advantage 2/5/10 and stacked advantage is that Advantage 2/5/10 is essentially fractional (depends on target but approximates quarter, half or full advantage), while stacked advantage is a multiplier e.g. "double" advantage from 3x d20. All depends on whether you want the new system to have granularity with "lesser advantage", or with "greater advantage". I'm happy with "greater advantage" from stacked advantage, for lesser advantage I am comfortable with small modifiers instead (+/-2) but I know others are less keen.
My issue with modifiers for advantage of 2/5/10 is that it raises both the floor and ceiling. Stacked advantage keeps things capped at 20+ modifiers. With how bounded accuracy is supposed to work, using advantage as modifiers breaks that, especially at higher levels, and makes the game too predictable IMO.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
Instead of changing the mechanic, I’d like to see character abilities where you can choose to roll with disadvantage, and get a benefit if you succeed anyway. It’s a way of having a more interesting risk:reward option.

Absolutely this. Give me more action types (I have about 6 I'm considering adding to my game, this is one I'm going to look at adding)
 

6ENow!

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
The problem with this IMO is it leads to GWM-syndrome. AC's are generally too low and getting over the -5 penalty isn't that hard for the benefit. In a like manner, if you could accept disadvantage to get a rider effect, etc., people would be using it a lot because hitting, frankly, is not hard in 5E. Against many creatures, the "risk" for the reward simply isn't really there.

Ultimately, it depends on how good the riders are, but given most homebrew stuff is more towards the OP side than the conservative, odds are it would be too much. I could be wrong, shrug, I would have to see some ideas.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
I don't believe in changing advantage. Yes it is powerful. No there is no way to add levels of advantage without making it too cluttery to be worth it.

I think the Level Up dev team will keep it as is, and instead don't use it as much.

Really the only option is to go back to numerical bonuses. Only question is, will the resolution be +1 as in Pathfinder 2, or something bigger (likely +2)?

Hunting +1s will likely feel too much like work, so my guess is on +2s.
 

tetrasodium

Hero
Supporter
I don't believe in changing advantage. Yes it is powerful. No there is no way to add levels of advantage without making it too cluttery to be worth it.

I think the Level Up dev team will keep it as is, and instead don't use it as much.

Really the only option is to go back to numerical bonuses. Only question is, will the resolution be +1 as in Pathfinder 2, or something bigger (likely +2)?

Hunting +1s will likely feel too much like work, so my guess is on +2s.
While I agree that flat +x mods were far superior to 5e's "roll 2d20 take the better there's no need for things like loot progression", advantage is still probably needed for things like pack tactics/expertise/etc as it would probably be difficult to cleanly get them all & having an improved version of advantage allows for what little good advantage brings to the table to be extended
 

CapnZapp

Legend
While I agree that flat +x mods were far superior to 5e's "roll 2d20 take the better there's no need for things like loot progression", advantage is still probably needed for things like pack tactics/expertise/etc as it would probably be difficult to cleanly get them all & having an improved version of advantage allows for what little good advantage brings to the table to be extended
Yes, I think LU will/should keep Advantage and use it for circumstantial bonuses.

For player characters "you either have it or you don't" is essentially the reason LU has been proposed - it basically shortcircuits charbuild crunch all by itself. My opinion here is simply that attempting varying levels of Advantage won't work.

Keep Advantage clean and simple, but use +2's for character build options.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Here's a (very rough half-baked) idea.

Advantage and Disadvantage

From time to time, special circumstances can give you an advantage or a disadvantage when attempting to perform an action. Climbing a cliff in the driving rain is more difficult, while striking an enemy while they are prone is easier.

The rules will sometimes tell you that you have advantage or disadvantage. This will be accompanied by a number, know as the degree of advantage or disadvantage--for example, higher ground might give you advantage 5 while climbing that slippery cliff might inflict disadvantage 16.

If you have advantage, and you roll the degree indicated or lower on your d20, you may reroll the die and take the higher of the two rolls. Conversely, if you have disadvantage and you roll the degree indicated or higher on your d20, you must reroll the die and take the lower of the two numbers.

Advantage and disadvantage usually come in the forms of advantage 5 and advantage 10, and disadvantage 16 and disadvantage 11.

If two or more effects grant you advantage 5 or better, you instead have advantage 10. If two or more effects inflict disadvantage 16 or worse, you instead have disadvantage 11.

Advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out on a one-for-one basis, irrespective of the degree of advantage or disadvantage.

---

Doing the maths on this, Advantage 10 is about equal to a +5, Advantage 5 is about equal to a +2.5, Advantage 2 is about equal to a +1. There are some weird probability curve things on it at the extremes though.
Having grades of advantage/disadvantage is a neat idea. The way the dice sum is not intuitive. For example, presumably order of operations is cancel and then sum, but order of cancellation also matters. Say we have adv5, adv5, dis16, dis16, dis11. We'd like to get rid of that dis11, but do the dis16s go first? What about the converse case? Seems tricky to keep in mind: how to solve that?

Something also just to bear in mind is whether it would end up supported on VTTs, seeing as many people (myself included) are using those now for games.
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
Yes, I think LU will/should keep Advantage and use it for circumstantial bonuses.

For player characters "you either have it or you don't" is essentially the reason LU has been proposed - it basically shortcircuits charbuild crunch all by itself. My opinion here is simply that attempting varying levels of Advantage won't work.

Keep Advantage clean and simple, but use +2's for character build options.
I agree with this. +1s are nickel-and-diming. If it is worth bonusing - i.e. has genuine value to delivering on the concept - give it a +2. If it is not valuable enough to be worth a +2, don't bonus it at all.

Ribbons are okay, but there is limited room for them and I believe from seeing them in play (or not!) that they need to be better thought out and more flavourful than a simple bonus in any case. It'd be reasonable for the design team to have a blank origins template that specifies what the budget is for mechanics, in "ribbons", "ASIs" and "half-ASIs".
 

clearstream

Be just and fear not...
As I've said, I acknowledge the VTT issue is minor. I'm not going to be drawn on this further. If you feel you need to "win" harder on this topic you'll get no response from me.
From the perspective of not being a person who writes code for Fantasy Grounds, yet uses that VTT for their long running campaign, it can be minor AND a blocker at the same time.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I agree with this. +1s are nickel-and-diming. If it is worth bonusing - i.e. has genuine value to delivering on the concept - give it a +2. If it is not valuable enough to be worth a +2, don't bonus it at all.

Ribbons are okay, but there is limited room for them and I believe from seeing them in play (or not!) that they need to be better thought out and more flavourful than a simple bonus in any case. It'd be reasonable for the design team to have a blank origins template that specifies what the budget is for mechanics, in "ribbons", "ASIs" and "half-ASIs".
Especially don't go down the path of Pathfinder 2, where you often get conditional +1 bonuses. That is, not only are you getting nickel-and-dimed, you're required to remember increasingly byzantine conditions you need to fulfill to get your measly little bonus.

The way Talismans work in PF2 is among the most egregious examples of this I've seen in decades. It really irks me that so many Paizo fans refuse to condemn this subcategory of item design.
 

tetrasodium

Hero
Supporter
Especially don't go down the path of Pathfinder 2, where you often get conditional +1 bonuses. That is, not only are you getting nickel-and-dimed, you're required to remember increasingly byzantine conditions you need to fulfill to get your measly little bonus.

The way Talismans work in PF2 is among the most egregious examples of this I've seen in decades. It really irks me that so many Paizo fans refuse to condemn this subcategory of item design.
I've given out single use toys ranging from scrolls to potions and trinkets in every edition I've ever been a gm in. Talismans are pretty much just that. Players might not buy them much, but thsts exactly why a gm doesn't have to worry too much about giving them out even if it's just to give someo
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I've given out single use toys ranging from scrolls to potions and trinkets in every edition I've ever been a gm in. Talismans are pretty much just that. Players might not buy them much, but thsts exactly why a gm doesn't have to worry too much about giving them out even if it's just to give someo
I bet you have never given out something as small inconsequential and highly conditional, that a player must prepare beforehand, select a particular item to affix to and then remember to use at just the right (and legal) time.

Yes, even before you've told me what you've given out.
 

tetrasodium

Hero
Supporter
I bet you have never given out something as small inconsequential and highly conditional, that a player must prepare beforehand, select a particular item to affix to and then remember to use at just the right (and legal) time.

Yes, even before you've told me what you've given out.
google pf2 talismans, this was one of the first few links.
  • "Thanks for the breakdown. Looks like I’ve been underestimating Talismans."
  • " I get that talismans in particular are tough investments, given most of them have a specific trigger, but I love giving them out as extra treasure to encourage their use. As a PC, investing in them might be a bit of a money sink, but a lot of them give pretty nice conditional bonuses. "
  • "Yeah I feel like getting them as loot is nice. I have a Feather Step Token from our last session and as a Rogue I’m like this could be useful for keeping me mobile, noice."
  • "A lot of talismans are free actions, though. So even with the specific trigger that makes them pretty strong. Scrolls are good, but take an action or more and require that you have a spell list with that spell."
  • "I usually don't place much value in consumables. They can be nice drops for flavorful treasure/rewards to sprinkle amongst more valuable loot."
  • "I've gotten some good use out of Fear Gem. It's nice to lay on a frightened condition from a Strike instead of trying to use intimidate with a low Cha character "
  • "Most of all they're worth crafting, because for the price of 1 (if even that) you get 4. Hahah, yeah sure"
  • "i agree they are underrated. People seem to want magic items with the most benefit. PCs get a ton of magic items and consumables as it is. End of 5th level a PC will have received 5 permanent and 8 consumable magic items wth plenty of money to buy more. There is room for talismans vs duplicates of the non situational items."
  • "I feel the Crying Angel Pendant is worthwhile to have at least one of. It prevents inflicting damage by critically failing a Treat Wounds check by turning the crit fail to a regular fail."
  • "There's a few that give fairly unique buffs, like being able to walk on water, or reduce falling damage"
The bonus/benefit they give is generally low, so the cost of forgetting to use it is also low cutting off the entire "players need to remember to use" argument. The benefit/bonus is often nice enough to be a welcome surprise or a useful cherry on top of a concept. More than all that though is that a GM can give them out pretty regularly & not worry enough to start micromanaging a wold be crafter pc from churning out a bunch during some downtime allowing the crafter to feel empowered & like her choices mattered more often when those talismans trigger. Your complaint that they are not as good as powerful magic items intended to be given/crafted less frequently & with higher hurdles to do so ignores that they are not intended to fill that other niche. If you feel like they are too weak, it's trivial for you as a gm to custom make more powerful ones & test them out as a drop before letting players buy/craft them.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top